Did you hear?
A Czech and a Romanian brigade will join the German army.
No, this isn’t the Fourth Reich coming to get you. It’s the birth of a common European Army—or at least some believe so.
Considered as Germany’s crack unit, the Rapid Forces Division, which is comprised of airborne light infantry, special operations troops (the famed KSK commandos are part of it), and organic attack (Eurocopter Tigers) and transport (NH90) helicopters, will open its arms to the Romanian 81st Mechanized Brigade.
The Romanians won’t be the Division’s first foreigners.
In 2014, the Dutch 11th Airmobile Brigade made the start. As an airborne light infantry unit, the Dutch addition made operational sense.
But the Romanians are a different story. They’ve got the big stuff—tanks.
The Czech 4th Rapid Deployment Brigade, a veteran of Kosovo and Afghanistan, will join the German 10th Armored Division.
“Under NATO’s Framework Nation Concept, smaller armies can integrate their capabilities into an organizational structure provided by a larger ‘framework’ nation,” said NATO Assistant Secretary General for Defense Investment Camille Grand, during the formal signing ceremony.
These integrations will be permanent.
Europe isn’t foreign to ad hoc multinational units. The British Joint Expeditionary Force, is comprised of British, Baltic, Swedish, Finish troops, and the Nordic Battle Group, a Scandinavian, Dutch, and Baltic rapid reaction force.
But now it appears that some Europeans see a future in an enduring common defense. Russian machinations in Ukraine and the Baltics have alarmed many, especially on the eastern fringes of the continent. With Britain, the loudest critic of a common European army, on the exit and President Trump’s unease with NATO, they believe that a new approach is needed.
“The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out.” The German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently told an election crowd. “We Europeans have to take our destiny into our own hands,” she added.
The innuendo towards the US and UK is clear.
But can it work?
The very nature of multinational operations says no. To be combat effective, a unit needs political will. The more nationalities you’ve under a single command, there more crowded the decision-making process becomes, and thus, the more restrained your force is to the point of being virtually combat ineffective and capable only for administrative or humanitarian tasks.
The many failed UN peacekeeping missions, Somalia, Rwanda, and Srebrenica, to name a few, and some NATO partners’ records in Afghanistan attest to that.
Even though the Romanian and Czech units will join the German army, Germany will only be able to deploy an integrated unit with the junior partner’s accord.
It appears, therefore, that these integrations are a political attempt to safeguard European unity in the face of increasing doubt about the future of the European Union. Despite the defeats of Eurosceptics in France, the Netherlands, and Austria, no one can deny that Project Europe is having an identity crisis.
Featured image of Lithuanian NATO troops courtesy of AP
Join our community. To comment on this article please join/login. Here's a sample of the comments on this post.
I am curious, though, what you mean about unintended but unavoidable criticism due to the US' history on the continent. I imagine our points of view differ, and also there's plenty of history I haven't learned yet (and being American, most of what I've learned has been from an American point of view.) I confess that nothing at all comes to mind that would mean obvious resentment toward America. Not that I think everyone loves us or anything like that. But say, Japan feeling resentful toward Americans generations after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I get that completely. Even if I have my own point of view on what happened.
Oh, the article is great! I was referring to Merkel's criticism of the US and UK, which I'm willing to bet is 100% intended, nor is it the first time she has done so. I'm mocking her, and any other Europeans who complain about lifting their fair share of the load when it comes to providing for their own military defense, and then act all sulky about not being able to rely on others to do it for them, like that's somehow going to punish us or make us feel guilty. Not. At. All. I have no problem with joining forces and fighting the good fight together, whatever comes down the road. But I am not going to feel the slightest twinge of bad that they're stepping up their game, committing more funds and troops and overt effort into protecting themselves. And the poor civilized Europeans who (like plenty of Americans and Brits) would rather make love than war with terrorists and aggressive countries aiming for their borders, thinking they will be safe if we all just get along, and who would rather pretend they don't even have a military or that serving to protect is somehow a dishonorable thing....they can learn to suck it up and do their part, too.
The article criticises Europe's half-hearted military project. Any criticism inferred regarding America is unintended--and yet unavoidable considering US' history in the continent.
. ...Under the auspices of NATO, this can work far better than under the United Nations flag. But as mentioned, the more units "meshed up" the more potential problems at crunch time. ...Some units probably just good P.R. ... a few, effective... https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6941e7a4f2d9d7eebcf547e924b125750e4f769360f8470ed9562e63fff9ccea.jpg (Dutch Royal Marines in Scotland as part of British Royal Marines maneuvers...) One of the best is the Dutch Royal Marines who train with... and expect to deploy with... British Royal Marines. They often deploy together to train in Norway... which for many decades has been considered a likely place to be assigned if it looks as if the balloon is going to go up. German and French units served together a few decades ago for a time... again, under the auspices of NATO. A great many foreign detachments served totally under the U.S. military in Korea 1950-53... including British Commonwealth units, French, Thai... and three battalions of Ethiopians. In WWII, a Brazilian infantry division served with the U.S. Army as a mountain division in Italy. Of course those "attachments" made after a shooting war had begun... not before. -Yankee Papa-
I'm not sure Europe has the will to defend itself, as most countries won't even spend the 2% GDP required to be in compliance with NATO. The countries would have to be very determined about a common Army, and be willing to address their deficits in spending and lack of seriousness about defense matters. There are always going to be national frictions and divisions that could interfere with the effectiveness of a unified European military, and they already cooperate in many programs. I doubt is this is going to materialize any time soon, but it is good that the European countries are starting to put a higher priority on planning for defense, and getting more serious about the responsibility of funding it.